So, apparently, the definition of 'post-racial' in America is allowing Blacks to screw up without consequence?..:
Monday, August 24, 2009
Democratic Intelligence
Look, here's the thing that Leftist activists don't want to acknowledge, but must consider before making any progress (not that I'm rooting for that, mind you!): the general public is smarter than either/both Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.
I dare say that the atomic weight of the Congressional 'leadership' has never been lower! (Certainly not in my lifetime, which includes Lyndon Johnson, Sam Rayburn, John McCormack, Howard Baker, Tip O'Neill, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Armey.)
Reid and Pelosi belong on some county commission somewhere, not in the United States Congress! And yet, Democrats have chosen them as 'leaders'! Incredible.
The Bourbon Pantry
Well, a sort of reckoning has arrived, bourbon-wise (or not-so-wise): I can no longer afford to 'chase' the burgeoning prices of collectible and sought-after bottlings, many of which I've already sampled, luckily, and maybe even have an example or two still on the shelf.
Don't cry for me, though, Jack Daniel's! I've been profligate enough in past spending that -- even after a couple of years of selling and drinking down the 'stock' -- I still have some quite decent bottles left. Hence, the reckoning. I've long advised others to drink up and not hoard hard-to-find or defunct bottlings of whisk(e)y as collectibles, no different than a 1916d "Mercury" dime or '21 Chateau d'Yquem Sauternes. Whiskey's for drinkin', I'd say! Well, the time has come for me to put up or shut up (not that I've ever stinted when opening bottles, but usually that was for an 'audience' of appreciative fellow-tipplers). Am I really going to open that $150 bottle of Rittenhouse 21yo rye just to make Manhattans for myself?
Maybe. My hope is that I may still attend or host enough whiskey gatherings that such special bottles might yet be enjoyed by attentive aficianados. But, if not, then know that I shall open the best I have for the least of these palates.
So, when the time comes for me to open my last bottle of Evan Williams 7yo Black-label, don't expect me to make a trip to the liquor store in order to avoid it!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
"Easy for him to say..."
Standard Mark Steyn bull's-eye hilarity here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTAxYzFjODdiN2E3OWUyNzY1MDU1ODM1ZjZjYmY3YjM=
As Steyn hints, Americans' overall life-expentancy is hindered by the number of surviving premature babies which later die, creating a misleadingly high infant-mortality rate in the U.S. But, once out of infancy, Americans live longer than just about everybody.
This is why we think we have a failing health-care system that commands overhaul?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
On Pondering Health Care
I have good health-care insurance, fully paid (for myself only -- but I have no dependents) -- at least, for now -- by my employer. I'm happy with it, and it has paid something around a half-million dollars for my medical services over the past quarter-century. I realize some are not so lucky.
On the other hand, the 47 million "Americans" widely reported to have no health insurance include:
- 5.2 million illegal immigrants;
- 5 million legal immigrants;
- 9 million Americans who earn $75,000 or more annually;
- 9.7 million who are eligible for government health programs;
- 6 million who are eligible for employee-based health plans, but voluntarily demur (many of these are young and healthy, and have few health-care costs);
- 12 million without affordable health-care options.
It's only the last group that is truly uninsured. The others either are not the responsibility of the U.S. government; have the means to pay for their own health-care costs; receive government health-care benefits already; or voluntarily do without insurance available to them. So, it's only c. 2% of the U.S. populace which really has a stake in the current health-care 'reform' debate.
Most of us have discovered from personal experience that tinkering with something that is near-perfect, or even just acceptable, more often makes it less so than brings it closer to perfection. There is no reason to believe that federal bureaucrats will necessarily translate Congressional legislation into a net gain regarding health care, even if motives and intentions are pristinely pure (which I don't think is the case!).
Still, I suspect that the large Democratic majority in Congress will not allow the issue to pass without government meddling. Democratic leadership will whip their members into a positive vote on health-care reform. But, given the likelihood that unintended (and some wholly intended), negative consequences will accompany such passage, it will be a Pyrrhic victory so damaging it may duplicate the cost to Democrats that the Clinton Administration's attempt at health-care reform caused: the 1994 loss of control of the House of Representative, from which Madame Pelosi's current Leftist radicalism emanates and holds sway.
Not many of us trust the steadfastness of the GOP regarding fiscal responsibility after its abrogation of the 1994 "Contract With America" that led its revival. Still, when the demonstrable choice comes down to whom can we trust? vs. whom can we survive?, the American electorate will not commit political suicide.
Monday, August 10, 2009
On Wings of Buzzards
The longer and more I ponder former President Clinton's "rescue" of two female journalists held hostage (once you decide North Korea has an illegitimate government, they are little more than terrorists holding hostages) by Kim Jong Il's regime, the less I like it -- and the more I'm sure we gave up a bit of United States sovereignty in order to achieve it.
These two Al Gore employees are hardly the only American political prisoners in the world. Will Clinton now go to Waziristan to parley with the Taliban over their 'POW'? How about Tehran and the three tourists who stupidly traipsed across the oft-unmarked border between Iraq and Iran?
No, Clinton won't go to those places, because he'd be an obvious representative of the U.S. government there. In Korea, he could play-act sole allegiance to his former VP Gore. And, yet, does anyone doubt that the NORKs leeched a humiliating 'payment' from the U.S. government in exchange for releasing the journalists? After all, the whole episode's purpose for Kim was to humiliate his 'oppressor' in non-proliferation matters. Be sure he thinks he did! It will be interesting to note how long it takes for the details to surface, and how damaging they are to U.S. policy once they're known. (I'd bet AFTER the 2012 presidential elections, if possible.)
Anyway, I can't help but wish the Korean prisoners had been rescued in a Perot-type operation such as the Texas billionaire propogated for his employees in Iran in 1979:
Ironically, I have little use for H. Ross Perot. As much as I might admire his business acumen, I hold him almost entirely responsible for the Clintons' rise to national prominence with his third-party candidacies, especially in 1992. But, credit where it was due: Perot himself was present inside the Iranian prison when his company's employees, led by former Green Beret "Bull" Simon, flawlessly invaded Iran and rescued their fellow workers about the same time the Carter Administration was scratching an ill-advised mission in the Iranian desert, with eight servicemen's lives lost.
History is full of ironies -- it might have been Perot-birthed Clinton who signalled the end of America's heroic era by performing so publicly what Perot accomplished in private.
We seem to be giving over private to public on a routine basis these days, don't we?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
End of Life Counseling a la Democrats
deleted (while I figure out how to link directly to specific posts elsewhere, instead of entire 'blogs)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
